The case confirms that for drug trafficking offences involving heroin and methylamphetamine, general deterrence is the paramount sentencing consideration and personal circumstances have very limited mitigatory force. The mere fact that sales were made to an undercover police officer is no mitigation in itself; mitigation arises only where there is a real likelihood the offender was encouraged to commit an offence of a kind they would not otherwise have committed. Where an offender was disposed to commit the offences and the undercover officer merely provided the opportunity, there is no room for mitigation on that basis, though the fact that the officer's requests led to larger quantities than the offender would otherwise have dealt in may be taken into account as a mitigating factor.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 19 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 19 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.